1 S. No. 22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR OWP 587/2016 c/w i)OWP 1527/2012 MUHAMMAD ASHRAF DAR AND ANOTHER …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Rizwan Bhat, Advocate Vs. GHULAM MOHI UD DIN HAKROO AND ORS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. P. S. Ahmad, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE O R D E R (ORAL) 22.05.2025 1. Impugned in this petition is an order dated 02.04.2016 (for short ‘the impugned order') whereby the court of learned Sub-Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate) Anantnag (for short ‘the trial court’) has closed the right of the plaintiff to lead evidence. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned trial court without considering the application filed by the petitioners for bringing them on record as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, closed the right of the plaintiff to lead evidence vide order dated 02.04.2016. 3. Mr. P. S. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents, on the contrary has submitted that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners was original plaintiff in the suit and could not examine a single witness in support of his claim and because of that reason only vide order dated 02.04.2016, the learned trial court closed the right of the original plaintiff to lead evidence 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The record depicts that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners filed a suit for declaration declaring the sale deed 10.11.1986, registered by Sub-Registrar Kulgam on 10.11.1998, in respect of land measuring 9 marlas comprising survey No.757, situated at village 2 Kanjigund Anantnag, as null and void, and further declaration that he be declared as owner of the above-mentioned land, along with consequential relief of injunction. 6. The contesting respondents have filed their written statement and out of pleadings, issues were framed on 18.12.2014. 7. The record further depicts that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners came to demise on 27.11.2015, and thereafter, well within the period of limitation, an application came to be filed by the petitioners for bringing them on record as legal representatives of the deceased original plaintiff. 8. This is an admitted case of the parties that the learned trial court without adjudicating the application filed by the petitioners for bringing them on record as legal representatives, closed the right of “plaintiff” to lead evidence. It is strange that the plaintiff had died and his legal representatives were not brought on record despite the filing of an application to that effect and instead the right of plaintiff to lead evidence was closed. It is not understandable that once the plaintiff had died, then how without bringing on record his legal representatives, the learned trail court could lead the evidence. 9. This Court is of the considered view that the learned trial court has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction by closing the right of the petitioners to lead evidence. The trial court ought to have decided the application filed by the petitioners at first instance and thereafter could have proceeded to pass any other order in accordance with law in the event of the failure of the petitioners to lead evidence. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.04.2016 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and same is quashed. 10. At this stage, Mr. P. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, has submitted that he has no objection in the event the petitioners are brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. Accordingly, the application filed by the petitioners before the trial court is allowed and the petitioners are brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. The learned trial court shall modify the index of the suit accordingly and the petitioners are granted further three months' time to conclude the 3 evidence and any adjournment is sought by the contesting respondents, same shall not be included in the above-mentioned three months' period fixed for the conclusion of the evidence. The period of three months shall be reckoned from the date to be fixed by the learned trial court and after the conclusion of evidence of petitioners, the respondents shall also conclude their evidence within three months thereafter. 11. Disposed of. 12. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 16.06.2025. OWP 1527/2012 Mr. Rizwan Bhat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. S. Ahmad, Advocate for the respondent. The matter could not be considered due to paucity of time, as the matter requires hearing as submitted by learned counsel for the parties. Adjourned. List on 24.07.2025. Interim direction, if any, to continue till next date. (RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 22.05.2025 Ishaq